schools. today there are 5000 charter schools in 40 states and the sea -- and d.c. it offers the opportunity to reform our education system by incorporating practices into traditional public schools. one of the concerns identified in the expected general letter to the committee, effectively the department, is overseeing charter school grants. there have been numerous reports of fraud in the management of charter schools. do you agree with the concern that there needs to be increased accountability for charter school funds once they reach the entity running the charter

schools? >> simply put, yes. we believe, from a policy standpoint, the growth in charter schools and the potential they offer for being able to offer innovative reforms or good. we think you often have a proliferation of different oversights and models of the state levels that make the subsequent overside more difficult. our direct interaction is with the state entity and authorizing entity. our work is with the states of verses with the schools and i think we share concerns that states to need -- need to do a better job in terms of exercising that oversight. >> how does the department create more transparency in how charter schools use taxpayer funds? do you look at graduation rates,

scores, reading levels and the math? >> if they are direct reps it -- recipients of money, they are subject to all the requirements of title 1. the dominant framework is the state framework for governing schools. we work in partnership but we have to defer in cases to where the states have a framework in regard to the charter schools. >> we send them title 1 money and we have some responsibility. >> we do provide oversight. >> i am a strong advocate of high performing charter school but i am troubled by the rest of the privatization of public schools under the guise of a charter operators. in your investigation involving education/chartered management organizations, do you find that

fraud and other problems are more prevalent with for-profit organizations or nonprofits? >> we have not found a difference between profit and for-profit. we have had problems with chartered management organizations. we are commencing audit work in this area also. we had a number of investigations involving these entities and charter schools in particular, we wanted to go in and get a good look at what that might mean. i agree with you that there is a problem. >> we may be able to find things in these funds when you go to some of these organizations? >> yes, we have had a number of investigated cases already since the last few years. we have opened 56 charter school investigations and dead had recovery of about $10 million.

the deputy secretary was correct when he said that part of the problem is that there are a number of the risers in every state and a very and the level of over state -- oversight varies wildly among states. that is where some of the problems are. >> i thank the gentleman and now we go to mr. mika of florida. >> in the recent legislation that congress passed known as map 21, the transportation reauthorization, we mandated the consolidation or elimination of some 50 department of transportation programs. how many positions have been eliminated and what taxpayer dollars can we expect from that consolidation or elimination of programs? >> we are in the process of consolidation now.

there are specific requirements for doing so. >> can you give us an estimate? would be 100 positions? 500 positions? will it save $1 million? >> although the programs have been consolidated, the need for oversight and implementation of the funds has not gone away. we will redeployed personnel -- >> many positions do you expect to eliminate? >> we are currently on a hiring freeze. >> so, nobody? >> i did not say that. for direct hiring freezes, we expect -- >> people are just trying to justify their continued existence and congress sent a mandate to consolidate or eliminate some 50 programs. people in the department of transportation are still making excuses to continue the red tape

and paperwork. i have not gotten into that which i see the same thing. maybe you can supply the committee with some information on the savings and elimination of programs when we are trying to save money. we trod -- we talked about contract powers. before i became chairman of aviation, there was a study about the operation of contract powers. less and safety operations. after i became chairman, i asked the air traffic controllers -- this is a skewed steady and they did ask the right questions. we did another study and the study came back and it said for every contract power -- tower we ve they monitor the safety records.

we have been cutting back contract towers is one of our biggest contracts and we are cutting back. what is your proposal to cut back? >> the objective we have -- >> we are saying $134 million? >> want to minimize the inconvenience with the maximum number of towers. >> how big is the elimination? >> there are up to 248 hours. >> each contract tower operates -- the price that i had -- the savings is about $1.5 million for contract towers and it is safer. you're cutting back substantially. you said this is your biggest contract? >> it is one of our biggest contracts. >> we had a list from way back

in the clinton administration when they recommended another 69 towers to be converted and bush never converted them. can we look at ways we can save money and make it safer? are you familiar with that report? >> you are generally correct. >> that's all i need to said. say. we will provide this for the record. how much in the rail area are we cutting? passenger rail -- >> on the passenger rail side of their -- is about $10 million cut. we're cutting back on -- >> talk about some things with conferences. we -- the increase in loss of

food service and amtrak have gone from 81-$85 million in the last fiscal cycle. we could eliminate food service. would anyone start between here and new york? between here and york. almost every hamburger was underwritten at $7. could we look at that instead of some of these other essential city services? would you consider that? >> the amtrak cuts are about $70 million. we would be happy -- >> you could eliminate food services and that would save another $85 million. let me close with it. mr. clinger is a former chairman when i came to congress. his act required all the agencies come up with an enterprise architecture.

we have $3 billion in annual expenditures for it and we have 400 information systems and some are duplicative and some are . ihaicdo understand something is coming in may? >> yes. >> we are waiting with bated breath. >> there's an opportunity for savings there and that has been a focus of management. >> i will yield back the balance of my time. >> now for the rest of your answer -- >> i could not show my face back at my office if i let this go by. that study was an oig study and it is less expensive than the faa operated towers and they are less safe. they are accepted with approval by the user community.

>> i apologize, i meant oig. >> with that, we go to the gentleman from massachusetts. tighe, your office did a study and they found there was $187 billion in student aid funds involved in student fraud. i commend you on that. in reality, it is less than one- half of 1% of what we spend on federal aid and next to what i find of the subcommittee of oversight for the national security, it is minuscule. it is important nonetheless. if you look at for-profit institutions in a higher education field, 90% of their revenues come from taxpayers. >> that's correct. >> federal financial aid, pell grants, g.i. bills, tuition

assistance -- the have about 10% of all student enrollment but they take up about 25% of all financial aid dollars we spend. 2009-2010, they got $32 billion in taxpayer money. that is a lot of it we have had problems with overpricing tuition and recruiting practices. have you looked at them with respect as to whether they are at greater risk in a fraud? >> where we have seen the greater risk is the low-cost institutions. which is primarily community colleges. there are for-profit schools like the university of phoenix that operates a community college component called axia college which ihas seen a number of problems with fraud. it is the lower cost institutions primarily but not exclusively -- >> can you tell me why that is?

you have so many more dollars and its programs going to one set of institutions and less going to the others. what is the distinction? >> it is not just a function of dollars. i agree with that said -- with the statistics. it is all about what comes back to the so-called student. when you sign up online, you have and visibility to your institution. they sign up for classes and apply for student aid and then the community college or will take back from the title 4 dig -- if they receive a pell grant of $5,000 because i put zero , my application -- the community college will take $600 for a semester of classes and remit the rest to you for room and board and books and other expenses related to education.

the problem we see for distance education is, why are we finding room and board and those kind of circumstances? that grew up in brick and mortar schools when you lived on campus and in needed to pay room and board. you don't necessarily need to do that in distance education. there is a restriction on the old correspondence schools. you do not get room and board for correspondence schools. the post 9-eleven gi bill done by the department of defense a eliminated living expenses of that gives you money that goes back to the bad guys. all they need to do is get a bunch of their friends or inmates in prison institutions to apply for student aid and then they kick back some of that money to the ring leaders. >> mr. miller, what are we doing

about that? >> we are following up on the recommendations to take action. there are system changes we can make like statistical models, front aend. we could work on fasa. if there is a pattern that looks like suspicious behavior, you can require more personal identification to go on in the application process. some of these require statutory changes. if you're going to change the eligibility requirements, that requires congress to act. >> are you making those recommendations to congress? >> we will work with congress and pursue what we think is the right reproaapproach.

>> could you provide to this committee the recommendations you have made for statutory changes and the recommendations you are making for rule changes? >> yes, there will be processed where we're starting with hearings. >> can you provide what is your doing? -- what is your doing to change the statute? >> yes, part of the regulatory process -- we have to honor the process which says we cannot have a prescribed -- proscribes prescription before we start the roll-making process. when the agenda gets upset, we will share that with your. >> you have some things that will already get changed a lot? >> we have an understanding of the issue and then how we engage? >> you have come to no conclusion yet as to changes in law? >> that would be premature.

there are different ways to address the problem and coming up with specific solutions, we're not at that point. >> ms. tighe, can you help us? >> the primary statutory change recommended was the change to the cost of attendance. there has been some modest movement in the senate through the appropriations bill for this year that will look at pell grant but i would urge congress to look at it as a total package of not just pell but also loans one can get. looking at pell could possibly lead to a perverse situation where a financial aid administrator would do two calculations for cost of its -- attendance, one for pell and one for loans. one student might borrow more. i don't know the department has

put in any kind of proposal to change the cost of attendance. >> if you will summarize -- >> you have a written report at this time? >> we did do a written report on the fraud rings i talked about. >> thank you. >> i might remind all those that the ranking member and i in the last congress had the data act that would have changed recipient reporting and the databases on which these kind of investigations happen. i'm not sure you can use the recovery act, the so-called rat board, to enact this and some of what you are trying to find, you may still be able to use that as set that the former ig said up to do modeling of what could be done on a broader basis.

we would encourage that and if you need support from that, we would provide it. with that, we go to the gentleman from texas. >> thank you, i was in high school, i was a dj and when i got sick of a song is when people knew what the song was an eye -- and they started to like it. i get the same feeling with the talk of sequestration. many american people busy raising their families and working are catching on. i think they are seeing that this is looking a whole like like a manufactured crisis with people screaming that the sky is falling. if my personal budget were being sequestered and i was in your place testify before this committee, i might choose not to pay my mortgage because of sequestration my children will be hamas or i could choose not to eat out as often and said my family will go hungry.

heaven forbid we look for a box of noodles in the pantry, macaroni and cheese. my kids would probably prefer that. is i reallyting at feel like this is a lot of posturing. i'd like to ask the two secretaries -- if i came to you and say cut 2% from your budget, do whatever you need to do, minimize the effect on safety, minimize laying employees off -- you got card plus to figure -- fix your budget. could you do it? let's start with mr. miller. >> we struggle with that. the money for poor kids and students for disabilities and kids on indian reservations is there.

what child is more or less important? >> there is not 3% in a waste, fraud, or abuse. >> 99% is directly and program dollars. >> there is no fraud in these programs? you are saying you could not cut 3% from the budget? >> the sequester is forcing us to cut if you said could we find cuts that would not adversely affect students, the ones who are struggling to participate are global economies, i would say no. this will have an adverse impact we will regret that i cannot believe there is 3% there. >> what about transportation? >> 3/4 of our department is exempt from some question -- from sequestration -- >> could you find 3%?

>> of course we can do it but it depends of what the impact is. the easy stuff has been done. since 2008 with in the faa, we have cut $510 million out of the cost by reducing travel 30%, it savings of $36 million, $100 million in innovative contracts. >> there was a nice laundry list of things we can continue to look at and i find it difficult to believe that it with the increased cost of gasoline, many families have had to squeeze 3% out of their budget. i don't think it is unreasonable we ask a desperate we in the house have come up with two different replacements for sequester that are not as painful. maybe you could find something. i have an important question for the inspector general. i am the subcommittee chairman

of on the post office government work force and the senses and recent news reports suggest that agency managers, to be able to choose favorites among their employees, to save them from furloughs in sequestration. can you commit that the ig's this will make sure that whatever furloughs, are handled in a fair and appropriate manner and they don't have political reprisals or choosing favorites? >> we will investigate every allegation. we are equipped to ensure that they are inquired into properly. >> miller situation in education? >> yes. >> great, i've only got 25 seconds. i have questions on improper payments but i will just yield back the remainder of my time. it is all yours, mr. chairman. you went to your work

force and told them they had a hypothetical choice of taking that furlough, that 5% effective pay cut, or finding a way to come back to you and show they could do the same amount of work with 5% less employees next year, not this year, in the next fiscal year, would you predict that you're workers would come up with organizational changes that will allow you to keep the pay and benefits where they are and do as much with slightly less people? just a prediction -- i think that -- i think that's what we were getting too. isn't there enough organizational litharge gaea that builds and that almost any work force faced with attrition and other means or taking a pay

cut, they will find a way to do better in the efficiency. >> most of the savings in 2008 that i was out line had been suggested by our employees. we have a committed cadre of public servants. they will continue to find savings. i would submit they would do that with or without a sequester scenario. >> you agree that your work force is smart and innovative and can help us in this process? >> i would argue they have been. we have asked them even today to take on more and more responsibility and they have been forced to be more innovative with their programs and take more accountability and take more responsibility for providing real effective assistance not just about getting money out but that it is having an impact. we are asking more of our employees' everyday.

to ask them if we can do more, our employees would welcome that but they would not see it as a new request. >> q, let's go to the gentleman from nevada. >> thank you, mr. chairman. prior to coming to congress, i served in the state senate in nevada and over the last few years, we experienced tremendous budget shortfalls which required both sides of the aisle to come together to find a balanced approach to pass a balanced budget which is what we have done. i believe that the federal cuts, whether under sequestration, what occurred in the prior fiscal year, or what may come, needs to be put in context with the cuts that state and local entities have already incurred. in the department of education in nevada, 70% of our

department's budget the federaly fund -- are federally funded positions. that is on top of the reductions that were made by our state agencies. i am a bit perplexed, mr. chairman, that the line of questioning by some members on the other side somehow is pointing to the blame at our federal agency heads rather than taking the responsibility as members to do our job. , to come up with the policies we need to arrive at a balanced approach which is what a lot of state governments have been doing for many years. i respect the professionals that are here today and your viewpoints and i specifically want to ask mr. p-orcari on the faa. i am concerned about air traffic

control. we have 40 million visitors in and out of our major airports in las vegas. can you elaborate on what the impact of the furloughs were that occurred in 2011 on your employees? we focused on what the new impact would be but what has already occurred? >> to the extent that we have had furloughs in the past, they have not been nearly as broad as what is being proposed under sequestration. the vast majority of the 47,000 faa employees would be subject to furloughs and that is because 70% of our operations account is the cost of people. those people are out there in the field, not in washington. it is going to have an across the board -- unlike the past -- it will have an across the board impact on operations. are trying to minimize the

impact on the maximum number of people. >> i respect the position that faa police are definitely going to feel the brunt of this under sequestration. what about the average american traveler? what will they experience? >> if you're traveling by commercial airline and you are generally going -- if you are not going point to point, thru a hub, is the bulk of the passengers are, you will likely experience significant delays sometimes. if you are a general aviation user, you will see a number of places where control tower services, controlled airspace, was formally provided but will not be either a midnight-8:00 or 24 hours. you will operate and what we believe is a safe but different

operating environment. >> this is an important aspect because sometimes people talk about some nondescript bureaucrat not performing an essential function. we are talking about air traffic safety. has anyone forgotten about 9/11 and the effects of not having the top notch safety that we expect for the travelling public? what will that cause? there was a report issued by the aerospace industries association that said the combined reduction in passenger and commercial air traffic from the sequestered could lead to anywhere from 10- $20 billion in reduced economic activity and a job loss upwards of 132,000 jobs. we cannot afford more job losses

in nevada. we're trying to get our economy moving in the right direction. we need to work in that regard it. this study accurate? >> we have not independently verified that study. there are several others out there that have similar conclusions. we do know that aviation at large as one of the driving forces behind the economy. whether it is commercial air traffic or whether it is aircraft production or whether it is the innovation that happens on the electronic and avionic site, we know it is one of the drivers of the economy that will clearly have an impact on the economy from the sequestration cut. >> i just want to close by saying i want to work with anybody that has a good idea as to how we can identify targeted

cuts in federal programs that are not efficient and can be improved but to single out these across-the-board cuts that we know are not good for our economy, that are not good for public safety and our ill- conceived, we have to move in a different direction. >> the gentleman yield back and now we have the gentleman from gainesville, ga.. >> i'm sorry -- go ahead. >> it's you. you should be next. >> one of the things that comes when you are new and sitting in the front row and listen to the entire hearing, it is amazing how many things we have talked about that have absolutely nothing to do with this hearing. we have talked about sequestration and other things.

we could have saved the taxpayers $67 billion over the last two years. we have not talked about that. there are savings. let me tell you a quick story to illustrate some questions. a few years ago, i pastor of a church for 11 years and went back to law school. i said the only way i can go back at 38 years old was to go full time. i said i will lose and income because i could not work and go to law school at the same time. we looked at all the things or we would not buy. i had three children and we did not discuss selling a kid on ebay. look at what we could do. when i look at this right here

-- i served in the georgia legislature as well -- we have $5 billion in cuts. in georgia, we cut our budget and we lowered taxes and we attracted business. it can be done. the problem i have here is that there are things involved with the cuts and the ig's - you are not listening to them anyway. what is the problem? you've got to have a balance. i go back to $67 billion left on the table that we're not talking the pay cuts you're talking about were through furlough days? we talked about rhetoric from both sides in dealing with the inaction in congress and i think there is an understanding that there is a frustration of lack

of common sense and planning. mr. miller, i'm assuming this was your statement but you said we thought was not going to happen. that is the problem in government, this approach that it would not happen. it was something that was coming and now it is here. the frustration that most people like myself who had to make plans was that you are not planning. my question goes back to the political nature of this. you have done well with transportation and i understand that. you mentioned in new york, chicago, and san francisco because those are high profile airports. why did you not mention atlanta which is the busiest airport in the world? because it does not play as

well? >> because i could only rattled off three or four at a time. >> we leave of the largest in the country? >> not at all, there would be substantial impact in atlanta. >> i appreciate that. in planning furloughed days governments in nevada and other places have had to do -- you are telling you cannot plan well enough that you cannot stagger your furlough days in such a way that you had to close a tower? >> we will be staggering furlough days. the employees will have to take one furlough day per pay period. >> you were telling you cannot stagger them in such a way to make them effective? >> that's correct. in some of our major operation centers -- 84% of our operation employs are outside of washington. >> long have you had to think about this?

>> we have been working on this for months. i recommendationg and these have been left on the table that are currently getting around to not getting done, you have money left on the table but in a hearing like this at a time when there is no real cuts going on, that is part of the problem, this is the time to squeal and say i am having problems. when we had cuts in georgia, we were trying to look at all of our departments and one area was higher education. we're taking a direct hit. there was a saying that we would raise tuition 30% and then one of our presidents said we will have to cut the cooperative extension program. in other words, we will cut 4h knowing good and well that 4h was one of the lease things that

need to be cut. he generated 700 people less said don't cut my 4h program. the american people don't understand the budget and i don't understand $67 billion left on the table. that's what i don't understand that the american people don't understand >> we will know -- we will now go to the gentle lady from new york, mr. maloney. >> out like to address my questions to mr. porcarui as it pertains to sandyaid. i want to thank my colleagues that voted for this. the cuts to the department of transportation under sequestration would have a devastating impact on hurricane send a relief efforts in new

york and new jersey. i would like to ask about two key dot program allows -- the federal highway emergency relief program and the federal transit administration public transportation emergency relief program. each faces sharp cuts under sequestration, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> the emergency relief program which provides relief funds to repair federal highways and bridges face over $100 million in cuts under sequestration, is that right? >> $101 million. >> will the federal highway emergency relief program be required to grant less money to state departments of transportation that has already been approved for sandy relief? >> have made provisions with the federal highway emergency relief money that it will not affect sandy relief. >> wow.

>> as part of the portion to cover previous relief efforts. this will not be true in the case of the federal transit administration. we will not be impacting sandy relief. the federal transit cuts of approximately $544 million will, unfortunately, directly impacted the rebuilding post-sandy. >> about as a problem. new york as a transit city, probably the largest transit city in the world in terms of how we move our people. will that be a $544 million cut to sandy or how much will it affect the transportation? >> that transit cuts will all be towards sandy 8. >> >> whoa. >> one of the important things that congress approved his

medication. rebuilding to a more resilience standard. there have been stormy vets' in the last 18 months that have flooded the transportation system. >> five stations, five subway lines in my district, it is huge. >> it is the most brazilian efforts that will bear the brunt of that cut. >> wow, is a disproportionate to sandy? >> this transit cut applies only to sandy 8. >> only to send aid, oh, my word. ]oh no, is there any way we can change that? >> if it is the will of congress. >> why were we able not to sustain the cuts in the emergency relief program but the cuts went through in the transit program? how was that decision made? >> the federal highway emergency relief funds were a little over

$2 billion and of that, the cut was $101 million. that left a sufficient balance to not only take care of all the highway-related sandy relief we believe will be required under the program but also to cover some of the existing priorities as well. >> this other $544 million is only to the transit might for sandy? who made that decision? did you cut transit across the country? >> that was a specific sequestration cuts. we did not have flexibility on that. >> thank you for that information i also want to talk about a flight that fell in the great state of new york that killed a number of people including a friend of mine in february, 2009, flight 3407 when it crashed approaching buffalo.

45 passengers were killed. the national transportation --"the pilots performance was likely impaired because of fatigue." both of the pilots operating the five were found to have " committed hundreds of miles prior to the flight." in december 2011, the part of transportation issued a new rule known as the pilot fatigue rule to emphasize responsibility of pilots on airlines to ensure that pilots are fit to fly when the report for duty. however, the new rule does not restrict the amount of commuting that pilots by undertake on their way to the airport. who would be the proper person to ask about this? have you recommended that the faa ensure that the collection and analysis of data regarding

domestic and commuting links for 121 flight crews? why did you make this recommendation? did you make this recommendation? >> we did. >> why did you make the recommendation and what type of study is required to understand the risk of fatigue associated with pilots commuting? >> we made that recommendation in part because of the ntsb findings in part. the most significant in terms of looking at the faa available information on pilot domicile and commuting, it did not exist. we thought would be helpful to the agency in their safety oversight responsibility to begin to collected that data but not jump to the conclusion that regulation of pilot domicile or committing practices should be embarked on. in light of the dearth of the data and the ntsb concern and

the national academy of sciences did a study as well and found a lack of available data, we thought it would be who of the safety regulators to take a look. >> do you think that the amount of review of existing studies and literature is sufficient? >> we are not satisfied with the data we have. there was some work by our own faa medical institution on cabin crews that were used as a proxy for flight crews. in neither case did draw a direct link between commuting time and fitness for duty which is the responsibility of the air crew. we know we could benefit from better data on this. >> do you believe the faa's examination of existing literature is enough? >> not yet, >> why not.

>> the faa owes us a response and i believe it was due at the end of last week in have not seen it yet. i am told informally is on the way. >> i would like to ask the chairman that we get a copy of this. it is important to me and the families that lost their loved ones. can you commit to make an effort to collect and analyze primary source data on this issue to determine whether additional steps should be taken to ensure flight safety? >> right now, we are looking at what can be done in terms of reliable data. i can commit that safety is our number one priority. we know this is a frustration of all of us. we need to understand this better at this point. for the work the faa is completing now, i would like it

to speak for itself which is the next step in this process. >> thank you and my time is expired, regretfully. i have a lot of questions but thank you for your time and testimony. >> we will do a quick second round because i know the ranking member has a couple of questions and i have one or two i would like to ask. i read through your testimony and listens to what you had to say but the bulk of the ig recommendations outdot deal with safety issues and rightly so. bridges in particular. we have an aging bridge we are looking at which is $600 million that we will have to replace. that is not uncommon around the country. what we did not talk about and one of the purposes of this hearing is where we can find savings to avoid having to do

additional tax increases or may be offset some of the things with sequestered. in some other reports from your department, did you find some cost savings? >> of course we did. last year, we have financial recommendations totaling $1.7 billion for the department. the year before that, $1.7 billion. from your department, did youthat is not f those financial recommendations translate immediately to cost savings because they do not. some of them, we would expect our recommendations, for instance for the enterprise architecture or faa facility consolidation and realignment -- they are forward-looking and we would expect they would lead to better decision making an ultimate cost savings over the course of a long process to fully implement the programs. >> we heard a lot of testimony about next gen in aviation.

we have heard a lot about the delays associated with vests. aviation. i hear that not only are these delays costing the airlines efficiency in money but they are potentially costing us money. how much would we have saved if we had gotten next gen done on time? >> we can get to estimates of the accelerated benefits. in one piece of it, using required navigation performance in the seattle, tacoma airport, it is saving the airline a significant amount of money. it is the equivalent to taking a couple of thousand cars off the road in terms of environmental. >> i understand they are getting

a route from a houston to corpus christi? >> the houston metroplex initiative is one of the early short-term benefits of next gen. i have met with the interdepartmental staff working on it and they take great pride in getting the approvals in designing the approaches and the other parts on an accelerated basis. they are literally committed to shaving years of of what would be a multi-year process. >> is there anything this committee can do to help expedite the process? >> congress has been very supportive historically of next gen which is a multi-tier system. which is very expensive. it is the continued year-to-year commitments so we can plan ahead and the contract in community and the airlines can be confident to make those

investments. that is the single most important thing is the consistency. >> i had the privilege of touring some faa facilities and you have some fine men and women working there. the traveling public would be better served as well as the environment if that were taken care of. i will yield back the remainder of my time and recognize the ranking member for his second round of questions about thank you very much and i want to thank you all for being here. >> says been extremely helpful. it is clear that more needs to be done, these recommendations need to be followed and i would hope that both departments would act on them swiftly. a lot of discussion has gone to sequestration because that is what we are dealing with. we have heard that there is more to, and that is very clear, more

cuts to come be on sequestration. i am trying to figure out as i listened to you, i was saying to myself, the ig offices have a tremendous credibility. as a lawyer, i respect that and as a legislator i respect what you all do. as you talked about, i think it was you, you said there was some criminal investigations you could not get into because of -- i wish there is a level of trust with regard to other federal employees outside of their agencies. i was telling a group on the floor the other day when there were talking about federal employees, it was mentioned that federal employees leave at a zero 0.4% in the federal

government. the exit rate is not as extensive as the private sector because they have great benefits and they have all this pay period i tried to help tell the myth that if they listened to the federal employees and ask them why they do what they do, in most instances, is because they want to help the public, period. it is not about pay. when we look at people losing their jobs and there will be some job cuts, when we look at people taking furloughs like the lady i met the other day who will lose $800 per month and has two kids and is trying to put one through college, that is pain. we may act like it is not a big deal but it is a big deal. i am concerned that i want us to make sure that when we say there is going to be impact that it is

truly -- that it's true. in other words, if there is something else that can be done to avoid certain things, i want to know that those things are being done. when you talk about "sophie's choice" where you have disadvantaged kids trying to be all they can be and they can't get their when you cut all sorts of programs -- that is kind of tough. mr. porcari, you said that 3/4 of your budget is exempt, basically. >> that's correct, 74% is exempt. >> when you have -- when i look at bwi in baltimore, they've

already got about 258,000 flights per year. at some point, something has to give. they are right -- they are already flying from 5:00 in the morning until midnight. what gives? >> that is an excellent question. flight delays is like throwing a rock in a pond. it ripples through the entire system. you may have flights taking off late or cancellations. most passengers are moving to a hub, they may miss their connections. those connections are tied together. we cannot fully quantify what all the impacts are. we believe they will be significant and it is important to point out that they are cumulative in the sense you're

airport experience also includes the tea s.a. delays to get -- the tsa delays and the flight beyond that. >> exactly where is your responsibility and and there's began? you talked about possible criminal investigations -- you also talked about the money that has been lost -- where is the line there? >> understand --the ig makes recommendations. we're not management and cannot make management decisions. we make recommendations and the department has to decide how to proceed on those. it is their responsibility to executed if they come up with corrective action which we get a chance to agree on, then it is up to them to execute to that. that is fully in their

responsibility. >> when you talk about criminal investigations, i am trying to figure out where that is. >> criminal investigations is purely under my bailiwick. that is not something the department decides one way or another. i think the secretary under the ig is prohibited from impacting my investigations and what we initiate. with resources, i will have to drop numbers of the next couple of years. let's look past this year. i need to draw my numbers. >> what do you mean? >> in terms of people. we have not had good attrition. that is a nice reflection that we are a good place to work on the other hand, for a budget, it has credit problems. we will have to do a buyout in all the ways the government has to reduce numbers. that will mean fewer investigators and fewer auditors. that is fine if that is the

decision we make. but that is what the consequences. we're still looking at an era of lower budgets. >> thank you all very much. >> seeing as we have no other members waiting to ask questions, i would like to take this opportunity on behalf of the entire committee to thank our panel for being in front of us. we may not be the easiest committee to testify for as our mission statement says -- it is our solemn responsibility to hold government accountable to the taxpayers and that is what we try to do. chairman issa extra referred to as as the watchdogs so thank you for coming before the dogs. thank you very much and we are adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

[no audio] >> today on c-span, "washington journal" is next. van new "newsmakers." later, a hearing on u.s. policy toward north korea. next on "washington journal," the news of the week from the white house, congress, and the economy. then, state tax rates and their impact on household finances. impact on household finances. later, u.s. policy toward